Posting in Government
ust how close do citizens want to be to the sausage factory? And how hard should it be for critics to get the dirt they seek? If it's easily Google-able is it still dirt?
The government has issued a new Open Government Directive (PDF) that requires agencies to release "three high value data sets" in the next 45 days, create their own open government sites, and creates an Open Government Dashboard, overseen by the Office of Management and Budget, to assure compliance.
(The picture is from VAWatchdog.org, which is highly skeptical of this initiative.)
If it's fully implemented, and not buried by the next Administration, it's a sea change.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
- What will really happen to agencies that drag their feet, and the heads of those agencies, especially if they are career civil service or people close to the White House?
- How will the data be formatted and organized? Will it take a Ph.D to understand or is this really going to be an era of Google the government? Are you just pointing a firehose of data at critics and calling that open government?
- What happens the first time data found in one of these repositories becomes a scandal? We have seen how easy it is to twist e-mails. Think this flood of data won't reveal some skeletons in the Administration closet?
- Will bureaucratic in-fighters use this for score-settling, going after loyal Bushies who were embedded in the civil service during the transition. Or could it be used by loyal Bushies to try and embarrass the Administration?
- What about the data formats and the tools used to create these reports? How much of that will be open source? Are they guaranteeing the data will be under open standards at least?
One interesting tidbit already certain to cause controversy will be annual lists, for each agency, on Freedom of Information Act requests, including reasons for denials. This will be catnip to reporters.
Alongside every agency there will be watchdogs and critics, looking to see whether the directive meets its promises. VA Watchdog Larry Scott is already asking hard questions, like who gathers the data, who analyzes it, who crunches it to get the desired result?
There is also the question of just how open you want government to be. Of course military and spy agencies can't be open, but how open can foreign policy be? Every agency has data it considers sensitive, but that definition is open to abuse, as sensitive may just mean embarrassing.
The Administration has tried to open up Congressional deliberations this year, so far without much success. Hard bargains are only struck in secret, where harsh words can be exchanged before everyone comes out all lovey-dovey.
Just how close do citizens want to be to the sausage factory? And how hard should it be for critics to get the dirt they seek? If it's easily Google-able is it still dirt?
Dec 8, 2009
Dana.. And Carter is not a socialist, neither is Obama. Obviously you are in denial as adornoe@... has been saying for a few days. To deny Obama is a socialist is to again ignore what the man has said. Prior to the 2008 campaign he repeatedly stated that he supports socialist ideas. During his run for the US Senate he openly stated that the US Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it did not give the government enough authority to manage American society. 15 minutes of audio does exist to back up that statement as he outlines his reasoning. That sure sounds like a socialist to me? And Carter was so far left that Ted Kennedy looked like a conservative when he ran against him in the 1980 primaries. Even the ultra liberal Ted felt that Carter tried to take the country too far left during his term. Ted scared people so much about Carter in the primaries that it made for an easy win for Reagan. I had a front row seat to all of this while living in Massachusetts for Ted?s entire political career. I got to watch Reagan win Massachusetts in 1980 because of the damage Ted had done showing Carter as the socilist he is.
This President will be able to use his power over the next year to turn public opinion around. Not a chance! The only reason he had any popularity in the last couple of years is because the people who bought into the lies and the persona didn?t really know what they were buying into. Now that they know, the people won?t be duped again. And what the neck is than nonsense about the ?president using his power? to reverse public opinion? If the president is so powerful that he can magically order the people to please love him, then he will be even bigger than any God that anybody ever worshipped. But, methinks that you need to stop worshipping the Zero. He won't be shy about it. He knows what a light saber is for. Alternately, he could order all of his ACORN and SEIU people to go out and force the people to love him. Why, he could turn out to be another Mohammed or another Hitler. You're going to be surprised. Nothing would surprise me about what Obama or the democrats are capable of doing. Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. And Carter is not a socialist, neither is Obama. Both are socialists, except Obama is a lot more socialist to the point of actually being a communist. I don't think you really understand what the term means. The guy that you replied to probably doesn?t, but I do. The only Socialist in the whole Congress is Bernie Sanders. Sanders is one of the few that have openly declared themselves to be socialists. But, Obama and many in his administration, and the entire ?democrat? leadership in congress, are a bunch of socialists, some of them actually communist. Listen to him a while dump on the President, and you'll have a taste of socialist opinion. Obama has had to pull back some from his original intentions and that has angered the very far left of congress, including Sanders. But, Sanders and many ultra-leftists just want Obama to go back and keep his promises he made during the campaign and just prior to getting sworn in, and one of those promises was to ?fundamentally transform the politics and economy of the U.S.?. Obama?s intention was to transform the country into a socialist state; the proof of that is all over his speeches and in his writings and in his personal relationships with socialists and communists. You need to learn that just because you call something something does not make it true. You?re the one that needs to learn that lesson. Just because Obama says he?s not a communist or he?s not a socialist does not mean that he isn?t. Ever hear of: ?if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then by golly, it must be a duck?. Nationalized health care is a social program, cap-n-trade is a social program, ?redistributing the wealth? is code for taking from some and giving it to others which is socialism. You many not recognize it as socialism. When you have done things a certain way for so long, you may not see anything wrong with it and you many not think of it as out of the ordinary. When you live in that liberal bubble, you won?t see it as anything wrong or unusual. However, Obama is a lot more than a socialist. He?s a communist. No matter how much you may disagree and no matter how Obama may deny it. A wolf in sheep?s clothing is not going to come straight out and declare that he?s going to devour you. PS. Can anyone at SmartPlanet figure out how to turn italics off on all of the posts n this discussion? Everything is defaulting to italics.
Sorry, but I disagree. This President will be able to use his power over the next year to turn public opinion around. He won't be shy about it. He knows what a light saber is for. You're going to be surprised. And Carter is not a socialist, neither is Obama. I don't think you really understand what the term means. The only Socialist in the whole Congress is Bernie Sanders. Listen to him a while dump on the President, and you'll have a taste of socialist opinion. You need to learn that just because you call something something does not make it true.
Open government in this administration is a joke. I predict that Obama will be a 3 year lame duck President as he contimunes to make the same mistakes President Carter did. Carter pushed socialist ideas for 4 years all while blaming the countrys problems on Nixon and Ford. 4 years of that, double digit inflation and an extended ressesion and he nearly became the first sitting President to lose his party primary elections. The situation is so bad now that Obama has already stated at least once that he may not run for reelction in 2012. Or does anyone on the left actually listen to what he says.
You're free to disagree. Well, thank goodness there is still a little bit of freedom in this forum. But, hey, I?m still aware that I could get banned from this forum at any time, but I?m not going to be prevented from expressing my views, even if I sometimes get carried away. If I don?t do it here, then I?ll be doing it elsewhere; in fact I already do. You're not free to call anyone who disagrees with you names. Kettle meet the pot. Yet, you feel free to be insulting? What are you allowed to call people names and they can?t return the favor? Don?t you believe in ?what?s good for the goose is good for the gander?? The policies of this Administration are not yet in place. There are no policies. All that the administration has done is to pass a lot of spending programs and pass a lot of single-minded executive orders and sign on to economy destroying legislation. Spending like there?s no tomorrow is not policy. A lot of that spending has gone to wasteful programs and to pay back a lot of political supporters. After 11 months, the economy has gotten worse with an additional 4 million people losing their jobs since Obama took office and the democrats were sworn in to their congressional offices. Most of the stimulus hasn't gone out the door. If the results from what has already been spent is any indication, we should stop further damage by not spending what?s left of the porkulus package. But already, economists say, we're starting to see economic stability, Where? What we?re seeing is more companies going out of business and more people losing their homes and more people losing their jobs. Close to 500,000 people file for unemployment collection on a weekly basis. Unemployment is over 10% and the real unemployment rate is around 18%. You call that stability? and the stock market is up. The stock market by itself is not an indicator of the overall health of an economy. That there are people still willing to risk their money on stocks does not speak for the overall economic health. What you and Obama and the democrats are doing is just picking out one little ray of hope in order to continue the lie about the ?economy will recover? and ?all indicators are pointing up?. At this point, you need things to go to heck in a handbasket. If the sky does not fall, you lose. The reality is that, when something works, I?ll applaud it, no matter where the idea came from. Thus, if unemployment went down and the economy recovered under the democrats, I would not be bashing whatever they did. As it stands, nothing they?ve done has been productive. How the heck can anyone applaud anything that doesn?t work. But, the sky is indeed falling. And Obama and the democrats are clueless. Nothing they?ve done has worked and they continue to concentrate on programs that the people don?t care about. The people are not caring about health care reform when they are losing their jobs. And they care even less about cap-n-trade/global warming when the people are losing their homes, and businesses are still closing, and people are still losing jobs. The sky will not fall. The sky will not fall but the American economy will not recover with the likes of Obama and the democrats in control. In fact, we can only expect for things to get worse. A little bit of good news here and there does not change the general trend of a worsening economy. That's my prediction for 2010.If it does you'll be proven right, but I don't think it will. Your predictions are worthless when you disregard the reality of what?s truly happening around you. My predictions are worth more because they are base on how people think when things are going from bad to worse. Prediction: democrats lose both houses of congress in 2010. That?s why they are in a hurry to pass some time of health care legislation this year; they don?t? expect to be back next year. Prediction: Obama will lost in 2012 and he?ll become a lame duck after the 2010 elections. Prediction: the economy will start recovering if congress and the president remove all of the big uncertainties for businesses if they drop the huge health care reform boondoggle, if they drop the cap-and-trade nonsense, and if they also start cutting taxes. Prediction: once Obama stops the excuses by blaming Bush for the current problems and starts taking responsibility for correcting the problems, then the economy may start its recovery. Right now and for the last 12 months, Obama has used Bush as his excuse for the continuing bad economy and has not taken responsibility for his ill-advised actions. My predictions make a lot more sense than any of yours because they are based on what really happens when the government allows industry to perform uninhibited (that?s not the same as unregulated, by the way).
You're free to disagree. You're not free to call anyone who disagrees with you names. The policies of this Administration are not yet in place. Most of the stimulus hasn't gone out the door. But already, economists say, we're starting to see economic stability, and the stock market is up. At this point, you need things to go to heck in a handbasket. If the sky does not fall, you lose. The sky will not fall. That's my prediction for 2010.If it does you'll be proven right, but I don't think it will.
Hippies and Haties Still being ?sillie? I see. Are you sure you used to be a journalist? Did you graduate from the fifth grade? The vehemence of conservatives against Obama -- anything he does is bad despite any evidence -- reminds me a lot of what happened to liberals after Nixon was elected. You?re still not using your head to think. What the heck has Obama done that has made the country better? In fact, everything he?s done is making the country worse. The ?evidence? is already in and he?s not good for the country. Get your head out of the ground already! It turned out in that case that the real revolt was on the right, not the left, but all the press wrote about was what the left was doing in 1969. The left was wholly committed to the destruction of Nixon. But, you?re not seeing the total picture. The republicans too wanted Nixon to fess up and to be punished. That?s the difference between republicans and democrats. The democrats will stand behind their crappy and corrupt politicians (Clinton, anyone?), while the republicans want to remove the crap from their midst. But, like always, you get your ?facts? out of the democratic party talking points. Shame on you! You should never call yourself a reporter or journalist again. You are not believable at all. You?re just a rabid partisan hack. I suspect the same is happening now. I suspect you?re wrong, like always. The economy is going to recover next year, Where is it you live again? Fantasyland? a lot of signs are going to point upward, That?s actually a pretty dumb way to present your argument. ?Going to point upward?? I could also say that the ?world will end in 2012? and I would be just as correct as you. In other words, I would be just as clueless as you are in your prediction. However, none of the signs point to an economic recovery next year or the year after that and not even 5 years after that. The ?five year plan? from commissar Obama won?t work just like they didn?t work for the old USSR leaders. Your wishful thinking should never be part of any predictions. You hold no credibility at all, no matter what issue you talk or write about. You need to find a different career. You?re not good at this one. You are delusional. All signs point to a worse economy next year and years after that. The people are unhappy and they?re going to undo the damage caused during the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008; and in 2012, Obama is a gonner. In fact, close to 45% of the people, including independents and some liberals, are wishing that they had GW Bush back at the helm. By spring of next year, that figure may climb to over 50%. Obama?s approval rating is now in the mid 40s and dropping; the liberal congress? approval rating is much lower. Do you even bother to follow the news? It?s apparent you need to make up your own version of the news. but a lot of liberals are anxious to primary conservative Democrats, Actually, it?s the complete opposite. The liberals are worried about being ?primaried? by conservative/moderate democrats. But, it matters little. The liberals and all democrats need to be very worried about their jobs or careers come next year. In fact, the democratic leadership is already preparing to lose both houses of congress to the republicans. That?s why they?re overanxious to pass the healthcare bill this year. They know they won?t be able to do it next year with the looming elections and the dissatisfaction of the electorate with everything that congress and the president have done. regardless of what Politico thinks, Politico is a liberal media organization. You need to pay attention when they speak. At least they have a bigger following and they?re not as radical and fanatical as you and some of your fellow bloggers here on ZDNet. and take their chances with candidates who stand for something rather than officeholders who stand for nothing. The party of no scruples? You gotta be kidding! They have no principles and they stand for all things that weaken America. They are the most sinister and insidious congress to ever hold office. Sound familiar? You go ahead and continue kidding yourself. It's a Republican instinct going back 40 years. Whatever the republicans have done, going back 40 years, or even way back to the beginning of its history, they can?t be accused of working to undermine the constitution and what this country stands for. The democrats believe in the complete opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind for the country. It's what Republicans are doing now, claiming that mistakes were made by fallible humans, that the movement can't fail but only be failed, and that this time they're going to get it right with "ordinary Americans" who are going to "throw the bums out." There are indeed a lot of republicans who did forget what the republican and conservative principles are for governing. Those people are being ?primaried? out of our ranks. The tea party movement is trying to cleanse the republican and conservative movements. It is that cleansing which has allowed many democrats into power, including Obama. When republicans are split, the democrats win. Hopefully, the RINOs will eventually become inconsequential and removed from our ranks. It takes time. However, you fail to notice the big picture about what is really going on. It is not the Republican Party leaders who are leading the ?cleansing? movement. It is the at large members who want the republicans to get back to what republicanism really means. The republican ?leaders? are now following the movement. The movement is led by the people and that?s where government belongs, in the hands of the people. You can?t say the same thing about democrats. Democrats believe that the people don?t really know what they want and so, the leaders have to dictate without having to listen to the people. That?s why there is a disconnect even now between what the people are saying that?s needed from government and what the democrat leaders say is needed. Over 54% of the people say that they don?t want nationalized health care and they don?t want cap-n-trade, yet congress is committing itself to passing those bills over any and all objections from the people. The people are saying that the economy is the number one issue that needs to be dealt with, and the congress and president are insisting that what the country really needs is healthcare reform and cap-n-trade. The health care and global warming issues are very low in priorities for the people; neither one of those issues breaks 10% as one the issues that the people care about. That?s a dictatorial form of governing. That?s why the democrats are harmful to the country. But eventually that kind of movement throws itself off a political cliff. That statement rings true, but it?s mostly true when applied to the democrats who control congress and the white house right now. In fact, the current democratic congress can be easily classified as a ?kamikaze congress?. They are willing to lose the congress and their careers to pass legislation that the people don?t want. To them, ?the end justifies the means?. They are willing to sacrifice their careers and the control of government for a goal which they?ve had ever since FDR, and that?s taking control of the national health care system. That kind of government is very dangerous and just as dangerous as government that existed in the old USSR and in Hitler?s Germany. The democrats of today are the fascists that people have always been warned about. Some definitions would have people believe that fascism is an ideology of the far-right, but when the methods for control are considered, fascism is an ideology which best describes socialism and liberalism and progressivism. It is the left-wing ideologies which need complete control over the people in order for its implementation to occur, and for total control over the people to be possible. What Hitler practiced was fascism, with left wing economics in the mix. Liberals did it, despite the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. I?ve always found statements like that to be so idiotic. No war should ever be ?popular?. Nobody should like war to the extent where it becomes ?popular?. It?s totally asinine to refer to any was as ?popular? or ?unpopular?. All wars are bad. However, when one side gets to decide what is popular or unpopular, people will buy into the mantra. Thus, with the liberals being in control of the media back during the Vietnam war and with people like CBS?s Walter Cronkite leading the charge, the people eventually began to believe the barrage of negativity during that time. The democrats got us into the war and forced us out of the war, even though we were actually ?winning? when we got out (according to an actual North Vietnamese general who wondered why we actually ?gave up? when we were close to winning). The democrats never met a war that they felt we had to fight or win, even if it was for self-defense. Even during WW2, the democrats didn?t see any reason for our involvement. The democrats are bad for our defense and bad for America. I think conservatives are doing it now. They've been in power for 40 years, everyone assumes that what conservatism says is right, yet somehow America's problem is we're not conservative enough? Where did you get that garbage from? You have things completely ass-backwards. The democrats were in power for the better part of the last half of the century. They controlled congress for more than 40 years straight. The republicans did all they could to remain significant, but most of everything that happened during those 40 years, good or bad, was mostly as a result of democrat control. So, the country ended up with budget- busting programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Welfare and Food Stamps and a lost war. All this will be proven, or disproven, in future elections. Everything you?ve said or written has already been disproven; no need to wait for elections. You make up your own version of the news, and as a very partisan hack you have no objectivity at all. It doesn't matter, really, what I think. First true thing you?ve ever written. What you have to say is irrelevant and useless and written as very radical and partisan opinions. Think about this: if you had been the owner of a newspaper where your ?opinion? was passed as news to your readers, you would?ve gone out of business after a few weeks. People like truthfulness and non-partisan presentation of the news. That?s why liberal newspapers and magazines are suffering with low circulation and readership. You are lucky that you work for an ultra-liberal organization that supports your radical views. Otherwise, you?d be out of a job. Or what commenters think. Commentators (notice that it?s not ?commenters?, Mr Journalist) and readers matter at all times. You disregard what they have to say at your and at your parent organization?s peril. Get a clue! What matters is how people respond politically, next year and in the future. Yep! That matters. And the people are already indicating that they made huge mistakes in the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections, and in the 2008 presidential election. Hope you are ready for the massacre when the democrats are voted out in 2010 and Obama is given his walking papers in 2012. In fact, Obama will become a lame duck after the 2010 elections. But I'm convinced there's a silent majority that knows the climate is hurting, You?re still very delusional. Get your head out of the ground. There is no ?silent majority? for such a scam and there never was. The majority of the people don?t believe in the fraudulent science and it?s gotten even worse with the ?discovery? of the e-mails that exposed the scamming scumbags The polls show that the majority of the people don?t believe in ?global warming?. I do believe in climate change, but then, if climate change is explained as ?the climate is always changing?, who would dare argue with the obvious? Even my cats would be smart enough to recognize that fact. You are in denial. You are now the ?denier?. You refuse to accept the reality that the science is garbage and the ?scientists? weren?t really practicing sound science. The lie has been exposed!!!!! What part of ?the science is a fraud? don?t you understand? that knows health reform is necessary, Health reform is always necessary. That?s not the question. The question is about whether a government takeover of health care is necessary or warranted. The great majority of the people think the government needs to stay our of their health care decisions. No need to look for a silent majority there. The clearly evident and boisterous majority is saying that they don?t approve of Obama?s or the congress?s plans to take over our health care. You are in denial there too. But, that?s the typical tactics of the democrats; ignore the people and do unto them. The democrats and you don?t believe that the people know how to run their own lives. and that knows the stimulus was necessary. What stimulus? No matter how much money the government throws at a problem, it won?t stimulate anything unless government allows businesses and the people do the spending. Targeting certain companies and certain supporters is not stimulative at all. The democrats are still delusional in believing that government knows better than the people about where the money should be spend and how it should be spent. Even if they had dumped 10 trillion dollars into the ?stimulus? program, the effect would?ve been the same: no growth. A stimulus is actually necessary. But the best way to stimulate any economy is to cut taxes and to remove constraints that hinder growth, such as regulations; the best stimulus of all is to get government out of way of the free-market system. Instead of growth, the economy has actually contracted with many more companies closing down, more people losing their homes, and millions of more jobs being lost. What has actually occurred in the last 11 months is actually criminal, and the ?leaders? in congress and the president should be considered for indictments and impeachment. Trillions of dollars have been lost and all we?ve got to show for it is a worsened economy. Yeah, there might?ve been a 2.8 GDP growth last quarter, but that was mostly due to the gimmick of ?cash for clunkers? and government spending. That is not spending that is sustainable. What is sustainable is spending through the free-market system by businesses and consumers. People are afraid to spend whatever they have left because of uncertainty in the economy and from government. It?s time to throw the bums out! We'll see. We don?t have to wait to see. The results are already in and the people have seen enough. And the ?leaders? in congress and in the administration know it. Their jobs are lost. The people are pissed!
...that the "silent majority" knows anthropogenic "climate change" (I see you're using the proper term now) is bunk, and that "health reform" as it is called in Washington is not "reform" at all, but a federal takeover of our lives. And they also don't buy your rewrite of history. With exception of the period of 1992-2006, the liberals have controlled Washington for the last 50+ years. (Not that the GOP has much to be proud of for at least half of that) And as long as business in this country has "health care" and "cap-n- tax" hanging over our heads, (making preparing a believable business plan nearly impossible since nobody can guess what their real costs for anything will likely be) there will not be much of any "recovery" for the foreseeable future. Other than that, you're right. We will see.
The vehemence of conservatives against Obama -- anything he does is bad despite any evidence -- reminds me a lot of what happened to liberals after Nixon was elected. It turned out in that case that the real revolt was on the right, not the left, but all the press wrote about was what the left was doing in 1969. I suspect the same is happening now. The economy is going to recover next year, a lot of signs are going to point upward, but a lot of liberals are anxious to primary conservative Democrats, regardless of what Politico thinks, and take their chances with candidates who stand for something rather than officeholders who stand for nothing. Sound familiar? It's a Republican instinct going back 40 years. It's what Republicans are doing now, claiming that mistakes were made by fallible humans, that the movement can't fail but only be failed, and that this time they're going to get it right with "ordinary Americans" who are going to "throw the bums out." But eventually that kind of movement throws itself off a political cliff. Liberals did it, despite the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. I think conservatives are doing it now. They've been in power for 40 years, everyone assumes that what conservatism says is right, yet somehow America's problem is we're not conservative enough? All this will be proven, or disproven, in future elections. It doesn't matter, really, what I think. Or what commenters think. What matters is how people respond politically, next year and in the future. But I'm convinced there's a silent majority that knows the climate is hurting, that knows health reform is necessary, and that knows the stimulus was necessary. We'll see.
Great questions, Dana. I want to thank @ananiasacts for the mention of GovLoop (http://www.govloop.com). Several members are engaging in dialogue over on the site and we'd welcome you to post this blog and the questions above in the forum sections to see what kind of responses you get. Regards, Andrew Krzmarzick GovLoop Community Manager
Oh no... I forgot... he is exempt from everything cause he is Jesus Christ! Its not Obamas fault people follow him with religious ferver. Thats those peoples fault. Oh... BTW... Obama has almost the same popularity as that "idiot" Palin... and he's been in office how many months? Bush was in office for six months when 9/11 happened... but it was his fault. Obama has been in office almost a year... but the economy is still bushes fault. This is really easy math... if it's bad, it's Bushes fault, if its good its cause Obama, our savior and appointer of czars, Jesus 'Obama' Christ has felt benevolent enough to bestow us with it. This isn't a government, hell it's not even politics, its turned into hollywood. We need to get rid of all our politicians and elect some PEOPLE.
I shouldn't be personal, insulting or rude. I apologize for any offense. Yet, you do it all the time. It?s not about using cuss words or about calling somebody an idiot. Language has so many different ways for insults to be lobbed. As an example, ?denier? is not a four letter word. Yet, it is used as an insult in the context of trying to diminish the people who have a contradictory opinion or have a ?different set of facts? to argue about. That has been the intent of the global warming proponents; to diminish the opposite side and the opposing arguments, and you?ve picked up on the tactics. You use those tactics all the time. I understand you're a Republican. Yet, for most of my adult life, I was a democrat, a liberal at that. Obama tastes, in Jon Stewart's words, "like a **** sandwich." For Democrats, Bush tasted like that for 8 years. Has it ever occurred to you that Stewart is a comedian and a shock jock? He is paid to say outrageous things. Outrageous things via the news and commentaries are quite a different thing. You need to put things into proper perspective. Yet, you went along with Stewart?s analogy and used the analogy with Bush. I would never do that. If I talk negatively about Obama, I?m not going to dehumanize him. I will however call him what I think he is and that is, a communist. Yet Republicans continue to dehumanize those who dare disagree with them, even out of power. I left the democratic party because I saw them as the liars and the radicals who didn?t think twice about dehumanizing anybody in order to get at their goals. Remember ?chimp? being used so often when the democrats talked about Bush? That?s just one example but there were many others. However, I don?t see the same things you see. I don?t see republicans using the same trashy verbiage to demonize democrats. I may say that I don?t think that Obama is a natural born American, but the language in that statement is still civil. That somebody may take umbrage to that does not make the statement an insult. "There is no way that the liberals in control would ever mean to keep their word about transparency or open-government. They may pay lip service to the idea and they may even implement a few programs to make it seem that they are abiding by some by some of their promises, but open is not something that the democrats nor Obama will ever be." Why? Because they're Democrats. Because they're Liberals. They can't be honest, can't mean what they say, because they disagree with you. Yes! Because they are democrats. Because they are liberals. Because they are socialists. Because they are radicals who are in the process of destroying the country. Because being honest is contrary to their methods. With their ideology, they?ll justify any means to achieve their end. They will cheat and steal in order to gain power. They do it all the time in elections, with so many of their ?voters? voting more than once and in many different districts, and with registering foreigners as democratic voters, and with using dead people to vote. They also lie all the time in congress. They do it all the time when talking to the people about what they?re going to do while scheming to do something entirely different. Example, the tarp funds that were repaid by the banks which were not supposed to be used for more government spending; Obama is just going to spend it to ?stimulate and create? more jobs. Obama has lied about ?creating or saving jobs? when there is no evidence to the claims. He and the democratic congress have used government spending to ?stimulate? spending in the districts in which they got the most votes in 2006 and 2008. There is something extremely dangerous in that mind set. Bull! There is nothing dangerous at all about calling a spade a spade. In fact, I think it is very patriotic to point out the dangers being posed by the democrats/socialists/communists. You, as a supporter of the liberal agenda, are just as dangerous as those in Washington, including Obama. I disagree with Republicans based on the evidence of the last 8 years. You would not be the only one who disagreed with Bush and his administration. Most democrat leaders did, and so did most of the liberal press. So did Ahmadinejad and so did America?s enemies. Great company you have there. Even I disagreed with a bunch of his policies. But, why not be specific? Why be so general? The fact is that he passed more democratic type programs than he did for conservatism. You only pay attention to the ?republican? vs ?democratic? labels. You are blinded by party. Try to think independently of the party. In fact, if it were up to me, I would disband all political parties. People working within parties oftentimes forget about what?s good for the country and instead focus on what?s good for the party. Nine, now. Next year it will be ten and the year after that, eleven. What?s your point? You make no sense. It's not because I question their motives, or think them less-than-human. You question their motives and you question their intelligence and you do question their humanity. You and the democrats in Washington and in other high positions are constantly uttering politically offensive language about how inhumane the republicans and conservatives are. Just this week, Reid accused the republicans of being against the civil rights legislation; yet it was the democrats who as a party, voted 80% against the legislation. It?s only lately that republicans have learned to fight back. I understand why Republicans think the way they do. Nonsense! If you did understand, you wouldn?t question the logic and the ideas behind conservatism. I was once one myself. Not believable at all. It?s been said that, ?if you are young and a liberal, you have a heart; if your older and still a liberal, you don?t have a brain? (not the exact verbiage). That would mean that, if you converted from republican to democrat, you lost your mind and gained a heart. Anybody that, politically, thinks with their heart, will almost always be making some very huge mistakes. And the mistakes will end up catching up with the stupidity. That?s why some of the liberal programs passed in the past, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and others, are now beginning to show how unsustainable those ideas were all along. Passing more government control over our lives, like nationalized health care and cap-n-trade, will almost immediately lead to bankruptcy for the government and huge losses for businesses and ultra-high unemployment. Ideas based on the ?goodness of the heart? are most times, bad for business and government and people. In the long run, liberalism causes more damage than it solves problems. In that sense, liberalism is very inhumane and unsustainable and damaging to the general welfare of all. In the sense that capitalism grows the economy and creates jobs, it?s only logical and reasonable to conclude that capitalism and conservatism are more humane than liberalism or socialism. And I sympathize with the idea of absolute adherence to specific principles. Liberalism, and especially socialism, are very unprincipled doctrines or ideologies. When the overriding method for reaching their goals is to do whatever it takes to get to those goals, then all principles are out the door and anything goes. But when principles become ideology, Do you even know what you?re talking about? A set of principles composes an ideology. When the ideology becomes unprincipled, like liberalism and socialism by design are, that?s when the governed need to be wary. when the principles can never be failed (oh it's just Bush who failed to be conservative enough), There?s no denying the fact that Bush was a ?moderate? republican with tendencies towards liberalism. His record while in office proves that and it proves that he was, in fact, not conservative enough. He was trying to please all the people all the time. To do that, he leaned left in too many ways and too many times. Bush wasn?t my first choice in the primaries but when he became the republican candidate, I sure as hell had to vote for him over whoever was the liberal candidate. then the whole thing starts to sound disquietingly like what came out of Soviet Russia, time-after-time, each time a new leader replaced the old. What occurred in the old USSR was very unfortunate and something that the people could not overcome. The people were suppressed and controlled in all aspects of their lives. The Soviet Union was dictatorial with a communist system which did not allow for dissension or you would end up in a Gulag or dead. Your comparison to the old Soviet Union is more fitting if you use the democrats for comparison. It is the democrats and liberals who are going for full government control of business and industry. It is the democrats who talk about control of the press and it is the democrats who would disallow free speech. It is the democrats who cannot stand to be criticized. It is the democrats who are in the midst of ?fundamentally changing the U.S.?, like Obama has proclaimed. It is the democrats who will say one thing while scheming to screw you with what they really do. I think you need to start using you head again to do your thinking and just delegate your heart to do the pumping of blood to your body. The ideology can never fail, it can only be failed. The ideology can fail on all sides. However, the ideology should reflect what most people want and should not be something that is implemented over the people?s objections. We need to go back to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Liberalism and socialism are necessarily dictatorial. Any ideology which believes that the people can?t be trusted to make their own decisions is a very dangerous doctrine. Sorry. Doesn't work. In the end, Communists had to take responsibility for what was done in their name. You are so blind. You need to get out of that liberal bubble you live in so that you can see the overall reality in the nation and the world. The communists never took responsibility for their failures and for their crimes. We still have communists in Russia and in China and in Cuba and in North Korea and in Venezuela and other places; now we even have them in the U.S. trying to ?fundamentally change? our economic and political systems. You very likely haven?t noticed that your democratic party is no longer what it used to be and has moved on to socialism and to government control. That is exactly what existed in the old USSR. You are looking at the wrong demons. The demons that you should be worried about are now in the White House and in control of our congress. As conservatives must. And until they do, I don't think they're fit in any way to govern. The conservatives and the libertarians are the only parties out there trying to rescue the country from the dangers being posed by the current administration and the current congress. You are so blind, that even if Obama came straight out and announced that he wanted to model the country after the old USSR you would cheer and clap your hands and proclaim Obama the greatest leader of all time. Look around you and look at Washington and look at what?s happening with your life and that of all the others around you. This is not the same country envisioned by our founding fathers and not the same as it was even 50 years ago. The country and the constitution are being dismantled slowly, and for some, it?s very hard to notice it until it becomes too late. You probably don?t care since it seems you?ve closed your eyes to the reality around you or you decided a long time ago that the old USSR was a good model for the U.S. You are not thinking. Start using your head and stop using your heart for decision-making.
adornoe@...-Then CBS and ZDNet need to have at the very top of their web-pages something that warns people that what follows is opinion and not necessarily fact-based- That sounds a lot like the warning disclaimer a British court said Al Gore had to put on his movie before it can be shown in UK schools. Do we see a trend here on the left? Spreading lies? Can't be... The Democrat party I grew up in did not have the gutter values of todays Democrat party. This is pre JFK garbage going back to when 80% of the Senators blocking the Civil Rights Act in 1964 were Democrats. Sorry Mr. Reid, but it looks like you were caught in another lie when you said Republicans tried to block the Civil Rights Act.
According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, when talking about the Justice Department. "The real question is whether being a "loyal Bushie" meant letting partisan considerations poison law enforcement decisions".... Like it or not, it may have started as a term of endearment in 1993 when first coined in a book, but it is now 100% a derogetory comment often made about anyone who does not support the political agenda of the left. And if you really want to know... Your kind call me a Blue Dog Democrat. I call you guys Socialists who are executing a hostile take over of my Democrat party.
My bias is transparent? Absolutely! You are clearly one of the most blatantly biased bloggers/commentators around. But, I?m completely aware that you?re not a reporter. You are an opinion writer and you don?t need to have any scruples for what you do and you?ve demonstrated that very clearly. I'm upfront on comments on my politics. Most reporters aren't. Then CBS and ZDNet need to have at the very top of their web-pages something that warns people that ?what follows is opinion and not necessarily fact-based?. And the readers or visitors should be warned in advance that this site, ZDNet and its bloggers, are blatantly biased and far-left wingers who support wholeheartedly the Obama and democrat agenda. I find your use of the term "all liberals" without evidence to be, let's say, unfair and unbalanced. I find liberalism and socialism to be so abhorrent and ignorant and radical that, there is no need anymore to try to have a decent and civil conversation with the supporters of the ideologies. When the ideology is one where ?the end justifies the means?, then it is a very dangerous philosophy. I don?t mince words. I call it as I see it. I also refer you to the answer I gave hates idiots. Bushies, as a term, originated in the Bush Administration as an endearment toward people who were loyal to that President. I then should refer you to my reply to your idiotic post. I?m pretty sure you can find it. Want to be a Bushie? Be one. Just don't deny it. I consider myself to be a conservative republican. That Bush?s political philosophy coincides in many ways with my beliefs does not make me a Bushie. That is an utterly stupid way to label a republican or conservative. I wouldn?t call you a Clintonista and I wouldn?t call you an Obamie. If I wanted to label you as somebody that believes the same way as Obama, I would call you a communist. I don?t know you that well, but I can honestly label you a socialist with very radical beliefs. Don't pretend his Administration didn't exist, or your support for him didn't enable him in his work. I'm a realist. Bush was the president. There?s no denying that. And he was elected as a republican. That can?t be denied. He wasn?t my choice in the primaries, but once he became the candidate, I had no choice but to vote for him. It was either him or Gore. I chose the one with more sanity. However, Bush didn?t really govern as s conservative; I would consider him more in the moderate republican side than as a true republican. He had too many liberal tendencies and did in fact pass too many liberal type programs, such as the Medicare Part D or drug program. No true conservative would do that. But, no matter, he was president and America was a lot better off to have had him than to have had a Gore or a Kerry destroying the country. To me, a Bushie is not a full-blown republican, so therefore, I?m not a Bushie like you would like to classify me. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, we have the socialists who are in effect destroying the American economy and the country, and the socialists and liberals are so enamored with Obama that they?d jump off a cliff if that?s what was took to show support. If Obama and the democrats are able to carry out their transformation of the country towards socialism and government control, I hope you will still be alive to suffer the consequences and to regret your stupidity in supporting what they?ve done and what they?ve promised to do.
I feel sorry for you. Bushies, as a term, began early in the last Administration. It's not a pejorative, but a descriptor. Actually, Bushie was first used in regard to Bush Sr. or the 41st president. It carried on to the latter Bush and is mostly now associated with the son. And, though the word may not have been used initially as a ?pejorative? (notice it?s not ?perjorative?, Mr. journalist), the use of the word by a Bush hater is meant as a demeaning and lowering term. Nice try, but no cigar! That said, there is and was ample evidence that the previous Administration sought to embed its appointees into the civil service so they could sabotage the next Administration's policy, in ways that were never done before. Garbage! Every administration seeks to hire people who are more amicable towards its policies and ideology. That?s been the case throughout history. Otherwise, all governments would be nothing more than quagmires and nothing would get done. In Bush?s case, he was no different. However, he wasn?t as intolerant of the opposition that remained in the civil service ranks as many other presidents, including Clinton and now Obama. In fact, it is more true that Bush kept too many people in the civil service and in the FBI and the CIA who were diametrically opposed to him. There were many instances were people in ?his? administration were insolent and tried to sabotage his policies and programs. Clinton, for example, fired all of the district attorneys once he took office, whereas Bush did remove many of them but kept too many in office. That?s where you heard such a big deal made of the fact that Bush, through his attorney general, wanted to ?fire? some of the remaining district attorneys in his last term. Bush had a right to fire them all in the beginning but naively sought to keep many from the former administration in the mistaken belief that he could placate the opposition and could set a new tone in Washington. Bush was a fool for not removing all of Clinton?s appointees and he paid dearly with very negative press while in office. I sometimes do wish that Bush had practiced what the democrats are so good at: sabotage. Bush was too decent to play at the game of politics and for his naivete, he paid dearly with negative press during most of his administration. Sabotage, however, is the democrats' middle name. Sorry if the truth hurts. Sorry, but you don?t have the truth. All that you have is a set of untruths disguised as facts. While it is oftentimes true that history is written (or rewritten) by the winners and by those who own the press, there are still many out here who know the real truth. Until Obama and the democrats outlaw the truth and freedom of speech, I and many like me, will be out here doing battle against your lies.
I shouldn't be personal, insulting or rude. I apologize for any offense. I understand you're a Republican. Obama tastes, in Jon Stewart's words, "like a shit sandwich." For Democrats, Bush tasted like that for 8 years. Yet Republicans continue to dehumanize those who dare disagree with them, even out of power. "There is no way that the liberals in control would ever mean to keep their word about transparency or open-government. They may pay lip service to the idea and they may even implement a few programs to make it seem that they are abiding by some by some of their promises, but open is not something that the democrats nor Obama will ever be." Why? Because they're Democrats. Because they're Liberals. They can't be honest, can't mean what they say, because they disagree with you. There is something extremely dangerous in that mind set. I disagree with Republicans based on the evidence of the last 8 years. Nine, now. It's not because I question their motives, or think them less-than-human. I understand why Republicans think the way they do. I was once one myself. And I sympathize with the idea of absolute adherence to specific principles. But when principles become ideology, when the principles can never be failed (oh it's just Bush who failed to be conservative enough), then the whole thing starts to sound disquietingly like what came out of Soviet Russia, time-after-time, each time a new leader replaced the old. The ideology can never fail, it can only be failed. Sorry. Doesn't work. In the end, Communists had to take responsibility for what was done in their name. As conservatives must. And until they do, I don't think they're fit in any way to govern.
My bias is transparent? I'm upfront on comments on my politics. Most reporters aren't. I find your use of the term "all liberals" without evidence to be, let's say, unfair and unbalanced. I also refer you to the answer I gave hates idiots. Bushies, as a term, originated in the Bush Administration as an endearment toward people who were loyal to that President. Want to be a Bushie? Be one. Just don't deny it. Don't pretend his Administration didn't exist, or your support for him didn't enable him in his work.
Bushies, as a term, began early in the last Administration. It's not a perjorative, but a descriptor. That said, there is and was ample evidence that the previous Administration sought to embed its appointees into the civil service so they could sabotage the next Administration's policy, in ways that were never done before. Sorry if the truth hurts.
that your bias is so easily picked up on. Bushies? Why not "the Bush administration"? Bushies conveys a blatant bias against anything and everything that occurred during Bush's 2 terms. And Bushies is a very childish form of communicating your dislike for Bush and his administration. How old are you anyway? No matter, even 60 year old people can be childish. But, you carry it to an extreme whereby you actually come across as a very radical left-wing extremist, like Saul Alinsky (whom some people think of as a just a harmless socialist but in reality was a radical and dangerous communist) or Van Jones. Then, you automatically attack "the next administration" preemptively, and way before anyone has any idea about who it might be and what political party he or she might be a member of. Why not make a decent post for a change with no bias and just the straight news and information? People don't need to hear your blatant partisanship. Give the people the news and information and they will probably be more receptive to your post and will likely contribute their opinions on the news/information and wont have to waste time addressing or attacking your bias. Now, as far as open government is concerned, I'm all for open government with the exceptions of military and foreign affairs. Most of what the military does and most of what happens with foreign affairs can be disclosed with no problems or damage to the country. When it comes to the justice system, there may need to be some secrets kept there too. But, for most of government, including what happens in congress, even behind closed doors, should be disclosed to the public. In fact, there should not be any closed-door meetings at all. Congress and the president work for the people and if the people are the bosses, the people have a right to know everything that those elected officials are up to. And it doesn't matter what political party is in power anywhere. The democrats running congress right now are the complete opposite of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". The current crop of congresscritters who control congress rode to power promising transparency. Yet, they are the most secret of congresses ever. Obama also rode to power promising complete transparency and he and his administration are also the most secretive of administrations ever. There is a lot that the liberals wish to withhold from the public and the public is getting more and more angry every day about the goings-on in Washington. There is no way that the liberals in control would ever mean to keep their word about transparency or open-government. They may pay lip service to the idea and they may even implement a few programs to make it seem that they are abiding by some by some of their promises, but open is not something that the democrats nor Obama will ever be. I'm not holding my breath for any "open government" from liberals or from Obama. Open government is the antithesis to what liberals and socialists are about.
And those don't have the means to do so. Most nations look at the U.S. and want to BE us (while keeping their own identity); either by their competing us, or hitching their fortunes to ours.
There are roughtly 600 different agencies in the US government - now given that each of those specialize, publishing 1800 new data sets of "high value" information would allow people - and foreign nations that would like us to be destroyed - a lot of information on how things really work, what is being done now and where, what is planned and where and lots of operational analysis type data that on each indivual piece is of not much use, but in TOTAL a data mining goldmine on the scale of what the US and England did during World War II in cracking the Enigma system of ciphers (due to the Czech resistance stealing one) which allowed the west to defeat Germany by knowing what they were going to do sometimes even faster than their generals got their orders - since we were reading their mail. And if everything is published then what is NOT published is also now known! Tom http://www.taphilo.com
Why not join Govloop.com and get the answers to all of those questions straight from the folks actually making to all happen?
Bushies? That sounds like something my 4-year-old nephew would say after kicking his soccer ball into some shrubs. For 11 months we have heard that it was all President Bush?s fault. Now the failings of the Obama administration are because of ?loyal Bushies who were embedded..?. Technical matters on this issue aside, the immaturity of the defenders of the Obama administration is accurately summed up in that one word.
An accountable government is what the founding fathers were after. This is a massive step in the right direction - if it is done right. But I find it difficult to understand how an administration which is trying to re-implement a means of controlling what talk radio and the internet say about them with a new version of the (fraudlently named) 'fairness doctrine' plans to be open.
No more meetings behind closed doors. We were promised everything would be available on-line and on C-SPAN. Our politicians need to be reminded that they work for us and it is an honor to hold a public office. I am seeing long delays in Freedom of Information requests. You should not have to file a lawsuit for the government to obey the law. Laws keep us from becoming a banana republic.
Exception 1: Protection of identities and locations of undercover operatives; subject to subpeona of that information by Congress when there is reasonable doubt of their legality. Exception 2: Protection of current military and police operational information. Exception 3: Protection of personal information regarding census, taxation, criminal investigations, etc. from general release beyond the individuals themselves and the agencies using that information. Other than that, everything the government does, records, maintaines, etc. is free game to all. Nothing should be secret or classified more than 7 to 10 years after the conclusion of the classified event.